Why modern iMacs are stupid

[jji7skyline]

The range of 21 and 27s prices has been pretty much the same up or down 100 bucks for years. The value of the iMac hasn't changed. This new penny pinch model is targeted at people who could care less about the specs. In a sense, they deserve it if they buy it and most of these buyers will never notice the performance either. They don't see 1.4ghz and think. It's a pretty New iMac, so that's enough. It has the mic and speakers, the OS. What's not to love

Anyone stunned that Apple would act like some sleazy shyster and sell an outdated product is asleep. The old crowd that bought many a tower through the X000 to G series knew the first thing to do was gut the cheap internals and replace with performance HD's & Opticals. Over the years, those options have been systematically closed and the money for performance redirected back to Apple.

When these 1.4ghz clunkers finally hit the used market, watch the very savvy auction buyers drive the price way down to where it should be. Likely 600-650 at 1 year old. About where it should be if the retail was 899.00
It's very hard to cheat the used/auction market IMO.

I like your point about the used market. I could probably get at least $750 for my iMac if I sold it right now. I've seen some go for nearly $1000, especially with RAM upgrades.

 

[Lankyman]

The range of 21 and 27s prices has been pretty much the same up or down 100 bucks for years. The value of the iMac hasn't changed. This new penny pinch model is targeted at people who could care less about the specs. In a sense, they deserve it if they buy it and most of these buyers will never notice the performance either. They don't see 1.4ghz and think. It's a pretty New iMac, so that's enough. It has the mic and speakers, the OS. What's not to love

Anyone stunned that Apple would act like some sleazy shyster and sell an outdated product is asleep. The old crowd that bought many a tower through the X000 to G series knew the first thing to do was gut the cheap internals and replace with performance HD's & Opticals. Over the years, those options have been systematically closed and the money for performance redirected back to Apple.

When these 1.4ghz clunkers finally hit the used market, watch the very savvy auction buyers drive the price way down to where it should be. Likely 600-650 at 1 year old. About where it should be if the retail was 899.00
It's very hard to cheat the used/auction market IMO.

But it isn't just that model though is it? The next model up i.e. the former base model has a 5400 spinner and non user upgradable RAM.

 

[lehoffboss]

Couple of things;

1) The aussie dollar has dropped a fair bit in the last year or so. Used to trade above parity, now its at around 90c to the USD.

2) Are you sure there used to be a quad core sandy bridge i5? Because I bought an iMac in 2011 and I'm pretty sure the only quad core machine was the 3.4GHz i7

 

[Samuelsan2001]

I think you are confusing this imac with a consumer item

This Imac is pretty much designed for use in schools, colleges etc where they will be buying many of them at a time with big discounts and the power use is much more of an issue. If you are equipping a school or a company with imacs these would be the perfect chioce for everyday use.

 

[Lankyman]

This Imac is pretty much designed for use in schools, colleges etc where they will be buying many of them at a time with big discounts and the power use is much more of an issue. If you are equipping a school or a company with imacs these would be the perfect chioce for everyday use.

Which still leaves the previous base model inferior to the mid-2011 i5.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Really????

Which still leaves the previous base model inferior to the mid-2011 i5.

Well here are the tech specs between the 2011 and 2012.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-imac-aluminum-late-2012-mid-2011-models.html

The 2012 has better graphics, better CPU architecture, USB 3 over USB 2, Two thunderbolt ports not one, Bluetooth 4.0, faster Ram, more storage as standard, fusion drive options, A fully laminated anti glare screen over the original glossy.

Ok in raw power it was not much of an upgrade but as usual Apple concentrated on tweaking and upgrading the whole machine to give a much better experience.

 

[Lankyman]

Well here are the tech specs between the 2011 and 2012.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-imac-aluminum-late-2012-mid-2011-models.html

The 2012 has better graphics, better CPU architecture, USB 3 over USB 2, Two thunderbolt ports not one, Bluetooth 4.0, faster Ram, more storage as standard, fusion drive options, A fully laminated anti glare screen over the original glossy.

Ok in raw power it was not much of an upgrade but as usual Apple concentrated on tweaking and upgrading the whole machine to give a much better experience.

5400 spinner - really? user upgradeable RAM - NO! - DVD drive - NO! never found the screen an issue. USB 3 - OK if you have peripherals. They downgrade the HD then give you the option to go faster again - great.

You have been reading to much Apple blurb.

What they really did is shift the product down a segment in order to make the ones above look more attractive and at the same time charge the customer more money.

Whilst it may be good business it doesn't mean the customer hasn't sussed out their jolly wheeze.

 

[thedeske]

The next model up i.e. the former base model has a 5400 spinner and non user upgradable RAM.

If we're talking just 1299.00
Yes, but you can upgrade 16g ram, a 512 flash drive to that specific model.

User upgrade was history almost 2 years ago on the 21, UNLESS you're one of the Crack Open crowd.

Just loved it when screen re-tape kits started showing up on ebay

 

[MacRazySwe]

I have the exact same iMac as you do, and I agree with most of what you say. I bought mine in 2011 for a great price. (10 % off an already reduced price). I can't find any reason to upgrade as of yet. Sure, the new iMacs are a bit thinner, which does look sexy - but it comes at the expense of the Superdrive, which is something I actually use from time to time. While I do want my laptop to be thinner, as well as my iPad and iPhone - I'm not sure the stationary iMac had to be that much thinner than it already was.

I think I'll keep my oldie around until we'll see a new design, possible with Retina-displays as well as SSD-drives as standard. Maybe I'll update mine to SSD someday in the meantime, as my HDD is the only true bottleneck of this computer. (rMBP has me spoiled..)

 

[jji7skyline]

Couple of things;

1) The aussie dollar has dropped a fair bit in the last year or so. Used to trade above parity, now its at around 90c to the USD.

2) Are you sure there used to be a quad core sandy bridge i5? Because I bought an iMac in 2011 and I'm pretty sure the only quad core machine was the 3.4GHz i7

That's true, but the current base model is still way overpriced, even in the USA.

Yes, the iMacs use desktop class CPUs so all the iMacs have been quad core since mid 2011 when they stopped making i3 iMacs. I think they continued to make i3 iMacs for a while for the education market though. In fact, this new 1.4Ghz iMac is the first dual core iMac in nearly 4 years.

Well here are the tech specs between the 2011 and 2012.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-imac-aluminum-late-2012-mid-2011-models.html

The 2012 has better graphics, better CPU architecture, USB 3 over USB 2, Two thunderbolt ports not one, Bluetooth 4.0, faster Ram, more storage as standard, fusion drive options, A fully laminated anti glare screen over the original glossy.

Ok in raw power it was not much of an upgrade but as usual Apple concentrated on tweaking and upgrading the whole machine to give a much better experience.

The 2012 models were a modest upgrade, and they did indeed have slightly faster CPU and graphics.

I was comparing the 2011 base model and 2014 base model, however.

I have the exact same iMac as you do, and I agree with most of what you say. I bought mine in 2011 for a great price. (10 % off an already reduced price). I can't find any reason to upgrade as of yet. Sure, the new iMacs are a bit thinner, which does look sexy - but it comes at the expense of the Superdrive, which is something I actually use from time to time. While I do want my laptop to be thinner, as well as my iPad and iPhone - I'm not sure the stationary iMac had to be that much thinner than it already was.

I think I'll keep my oldie around until we'll see a new design, possible with Retina-displays as well as SSD-drives as standard. Maybe I'll update mine to SSD someday in the meantime, as my HDD is the only true bottleneck of this computer. (rMBP has me spoiled..)

I got 10% off as well, but didn't mention that since I was comparing RRP prices.

I feel exactly the same as you do, I feel no urge to upgrade to the latest iMacs since most of the new features are useless, and the prices have gone up so much.

This iMac is definitely a keeper. I may upgrade it with secondary SSD drive for some more speed later on.

 

[crsh1976]

That model is build for low power consumption, but not performance.

I'm personally tired of seeing this fallacy thrown around, the base model isn't built for anything when compared to the previous base models (and now second in line); it's Apple milking their brand by slapping their logo on an ultrabook-in-a-desktop-case Frankenstein - it's too expensive for what it is, but as long as it's Apple branded, it's a-ok.

 

[joe-h2o]

I'm personally tired of seeing this fallacy thrown around, the base model isn't built for anything when compared to the previous base models (and now second in line); it's Apple milking their brand by slapping their logo on an ultrabook-in-a-desktop-case Frankenstein - it's too expensive for what it is, but as long as it's Apple branded, it's a-ok.

Today I learned that disagreeing with crsh1976's opinion is a fallacy.

Who knew!

 

[Samuelsan2001]

The 2012 models were a modest upgrade, and they did indeed have slightly faster CPU and graphics.

I was comparing the 2011 base model and 2014 base model, however.

The 2014 base model is not in ther same class and it's price reflects that they cannot be compared, this was a product released almost exclusively for the schools market. You can only compare the now mid level imac which is indeed batter in many ways and around the same price.

 

[Altis]

The 2014 base model is not in ther same class and it's price reflects that they cannot be compared, this was a product released almost exclusively for the schools market. You can only compare the now mid level imac which is indeed batter in many ways and around the same price.

That doesn't seem to be the case from the numbers others have posted (on page 1).

It seems that the base model price is, give or take depending on where you are, the same while the specs are in some ways worse.

The optimist in me says it's a case where they had to cut a little bit of spec to avoid a price increase (although seriously, a 5400 RPM hard drive?).

The realist in me says it's about getting people to pay to upgrade, as well as increasing margins on the low end model.

To be honest, though, while the base model specs aren't great, even they are more than enough for what most people do these days (with the lack of SSD always being the main bottleneck). Even running a Macbook Air (iMac base specs) with a second (1080p) monitor, doing everyday tasks isn't a problem.

I tried to explain this to my dad who bought an HP with i7 4770 with 12 GB of RAM and 2 GB discrete graphics card. Know what he does? Internet, email, MS Office, and sorts his photos and music. That's pretty much it. Honestly, my nearly 7 year old Q6600 with 4 GB of 533 MHz RAM is faster at everything he does simply by virtue of having a modern SSD.

Anyways, all this to say, if the alternative to the base iMac is to start at the next level up pricing, then I suppose it's just as well that they offer it. Ideally, the specs would be a tad better... I think a 7200 RPM is the bare minimum in a "desktop" computer.

 

[joe-h2o]

Anyways, all this to say, if the alternative to the base iMac is to start at the next level up pricing, then I suppose it's just as well that they offer it. Ideally, the specs would be a tad better... I think a 7200 RPM is the bare minimum in a "desktop" computer.

There is more to hard drives than the spindle speed.

There are plenty of hard drives with 5400 rpm speed that are faster than 7200 rpm drives - access time is not all about raw speed. The density of the platters and the number of them also factor in here.

There are also noise, heat and power considerations to consider.

 

[jji7skyline]

I just found that the current iMac scores better on Geekbench than the base model original Mac Pro.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Exactly

I just found that the current iMac scores better on Geekbench than the base model original Mac Pro.

And this has been my point all along you are basically all slamming a pretty powerful little all in one.

 

[jji7skyline]

And this has been my point all along you are basically all slamming a pretty powerful little all in one.

Sure it's not bad, but at $1000 it better be.

The first generation Mac Pro base model was pretty much twice the price of the current base model iMac. ($1099USD vs $2199USD)

Don't forget we're talking about a well build, albeit underpowered, modern Mac with a 8 year old one.

The original Mac Pro came with 1GB DDR2 RAM standard. That gives you an idea of how much it's in the past. It can't even run OSX later than 10.7 unless you hack it.

 

[leman]

WHERE DID APPLE GO WRONG???

I have no idea about Australian currency and its development over the last few years, so I will be looking at the current US pricing. Besides that, your comparison is plain silly. The new low-end iMac is a completely new model which has a different purpose in mind and caters to a different class of customers. It is not competing with the base quad-core. You have to compare your 2011 model to the base quad-core iMac. The 2011 model used to cost $1199, its modern version is $1299. So yeah, it got $100 more expensive, which is really a shame (I don't see a reason for it getting more expensive). Other than that, its a clear evolutionary upgrade from a 2011 model.

To sum its up, modern iMacs are not stupid (or to put it differently, they are just stupid as iMac every used to be). In fact, the higher-end models offer you best performance for buck an iMac ever used to have. What is stupid is your comparison

 

[bpeeps]

Today I learned that disagreeing with crsh1976's opinion is a fallacy.

Who knew!

Don't you know? His opinion is fact.

Are you sure there used to be a quad core sandy bridge i5? Because I bought an iMac in 2011 and I'm pretty sure the only quad core machine was the 3.4GHz i7

I can't remember either. I bought the same machine you bought.

 

[yjchua95]

Couple of things;

1) The aussie dollar has dropped a fair bit in the last year or so. Used to trade above parity, now its at around 90c to the USD.

2) Are you sure there used to be a quad core sandy bridge i5? Because I bought an iMac in 2011 and I'm pretty sure the only quad core machine was the 3.4GHz i7

Regarding the second point, there is.

Refer screenshots.

 

[leman]

I'm personally tired of seeing this fallacy thrown around, the base model isn't built for anything when compared to the previous base models (and now second in line); it's Apple milking their brand by slapping their logo on an ultrabook-in-a-desktop-case Frankenstein - it's too expensive for what it is, but as long as it's Apple branded, it's a-ok.

Awww . Well, here is a 'secret' for you — the dual core ULV CPU in the 'brand-milking' iMac is more expensive than the quad core in the $1299 model. Actually, Apple's profit margins on the quad core iMac are likely to be significantly higher, because they are cheaper to make then the dual core ones.

 

[thedeske]

'brand-milking' iMac

Love it - They should rename it the 914 after the 69 Porsche (VW 4 cylinder "Bug" engine inside)

 

[jji7skyline]

'brand-milking' iMac

Love it - They should rename it the 914 after the 69 Porsche (VW 4 cylinder "Bug" engine inside)

Haha.